The Central Issue in the U.S. Presidential Campaign

The central issue in the U.S. Presidential campaign can’t even be discussed in U.S. newsmedia, because America’s media have been almost uniformly complicit all along in hiding from the American public the crucial factual information that’s necessary in order for the public to vote in an intelligent and truthfully informed way about it. No news medium wants to report its own having been complicit in anything; so, the cover-up here just continues; it has a life of its own, even though it’s a life that brings the world closer and closer to a situation which would kill billions of people, as things get increasingly out-of-control the longer this coverup continues. The cycle of virtually uniform lying thus persists, despite the growing danger it produces. This article will need to be lengthy, because the American public have been almost consistently lied-to about so many very important things — things associated with the nation’s central issue — an issue even bigger than terrorism, and than global warming, and than rising economic inequality and corruption, but which is still virtually ignored. This article is thus intended to be ‘Drano’ for a political system that has become clogged by lies just jammed down into it, now backing up and pouring out onto America’s political floor. The overflowing sludge has got to be cleaned up, and discarded. Or else — and very suddenly — it will kill us all.

U.S. President Barack Obama has stated, on many occasions, that the U.S. is the only “indispensable” country, and that any country which refuses to capitulate to American global supremacy is an enemy. This applies especially to Russia and to China — two formerly communist nations. Thus, the ‘Cold War’ is being resumed, and U.S. arms-makers are booming again, even though the ideological excuse (the “red scare,” communism) is now gone.

“The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation. That has been true for the century passed and it will be true for the century to come. … Russia’s aggression toward former Soviet states unnerves capitals in Europe, while China’s economic rise and military reach worries its neighbors. From Brazil to India, rising middle classes compete with us, and governments seek a greater say in global forums. … It will be your generation’s task to respond to this new world. The question we face, the question each of you will face, is not whether America will lead, but how we will lead — not just to secure our peace and prosperity, but also extend peace and prosperity around the globe.”

He was telling West Point graduates there, that economic competition can become a cause for America to go to war, and that America’s global supremacy is their job to enforce.

Obama placed this into a moralizing framework, as he always so skillfully does (for propaganda-purposes; he’s terrifically gifted at that), by saying to those cadets:

“America’s willingness to apply force around the world is the ultimate safeguard against chaos, and America’s failure to act in the face of Syrian brutality or Russian provocations not only violates our conscience, but invites escalating aggression in the future. … In the 21st century American isolationism is not an option. We don’t have a choice to ignore what happens beyond our borders. … As the Syrian civil war spills across borders, the capacity of battle-hardened extremist groups to come after us only increases. Regional aggression that goes unchecked — whether in southern Ukraine or the South China Sea, or anywhere else in the world — will ultimately impact our allies and could draw in our military. We can’t ignore what happens beyond our boundaries. And beyond these narrow rationales, I believe we have a real stake, an abiding self-interest, in making sure our children and our grandchildren grow up in a world where schoolgirls are not kidnapped and where individuals are not slaughtered because of tribe or faith or political belief. I believe that a world of greater freedom and tolerance is not only a moral imperative, it also helps to keep us safe.”

He was equating there the imposition of American control, as being “a world of greater freedom and tolerance,” which “helps to keep us safe.” Was it that, and did it do that, in Iraq? What about in Libya? What did it do for Ukraine? Is it really doing that in Syria? What about all of the refugees that are pouring out of all of those countries, which are being ‘saved’ by Obama’s policy, which has been America’s policy for decades, and which is not challenged, and which is bipartisan in every regard except for the style of lying rhetoric that’s being used to ‘justify’ it?

Some of the top members of Congress who have responsibility over foreign affairs refuse even to become acquainted with the evidence disproving the U.S. government’s lies on this. Elizabeth Murray was shocked to find in government officials, this intentional refusal to see evidence. She had served as Deputy National Intelligence Officer for the Near East in the National Intelligence Council before retiring after a 27-year career in the U.S. government. (She should be the head of the CIA.) On 24 July 2016, in an article titled “Rep. Rick Larsen Bases Russia Policy on Myth”, she described her efforts to inform congressman Larsen about the reality of the U.S. operation in Ukraine. Wikipedia says: “Richard Ray ‘Rick’ Larsen is the United States Representative for Washington’s 2nd congressional district and a member of the Democratic Party. … Larsen is a member of the House Armed Services Committee and the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. … He formerly worked as director of public affairs for the Washington State Dental Association and as a lobbyist for the dental profession. … the Second District was represented by future U.S. Senator Henry M. ‘Scoop’ Jackson between 1941 and 1953.” (Jackson later became famous as “the Senator from Boeing,” the first of the Democratic Party neoconservatives.)

I mentioned to Rep. Larsen that I had just returned from Russia with a U.S. delegation, and that all the people in Russia I had spoken with — including teachers, students, journalists, medical doctors, entrepreneurs and war veterans — had no desire for a nuclear war with the United States, but instead expressed the wish for peaceful, normalized relations . . . During our time in Yalta, I had organized a ‘swim for peace’ with Americans and Russian war vets swimming together in the Black Sea, which had caused quite a stir in local Russian language media. I explained to Rep. Larsen my understanding of why the Russian public is suspicious about U.S. moves in the region (based on what I heard from people there), and why they would expect the United States to be the first to make a unilateral confidence-building measure in the direction of nuclear disarmament. Russians were savvy to the Nuland ‘Yats’ youtube recording (in which Victoria Nuland is distinctly heard telling U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt that ‘Yats is the guy’ just prior to the regime change in which Arseniy Yatsenyuk became prime minister, and which directly implicated the U.S. in the Ukrainian coup), felt threatened by the recent NATO/Operation Anakonda maneuvers that took place during our delegation’s visit, and were extremely concerned about other provocative U.S. moves in the region, including economic sanctions on Russia and Crimea, the latter enacted after a majority of Crimeans voted to rejoin Russia in response to what they saw as outside interference in the affairs of Ukraine.

Larsen immediately responded with rebuttals, stating flat-out he didn’t believe there was a U.S. role in the Ukrainian events — that what I’d just told him was ‘not what I’ve been hearing’ – and he went on to talk about how the Baltic states felt threatened by Russia, etc. He didn’t know what ‘Operation Anakonda’ was and seemed unaware that the largest-ever NATO military maneuvers since WWII had just taken place on Russia’s borders. I offered to send his office additional information about that and the Ukrainian events – an offer he ignored.

The path we’re on can end only in one of two ways: Either the U.S. ‘news’ media will get real and start reporting the crucial realities (such as that the aggression in Ukraine wasn’t Putin’s ‘seizure’ of Crimea but the immediately prior coup — and its necessary ethnic cleansing afterwards — by Obama’s hirees, which started being organized by him no later than 1 March 2013, and which culminated nearly a year later), these being the crucial realities that contradict the official lies and thus might (if we’re extremely lucky) compel the U.S. government to reverse its present course; or else, there will be a surprise blitz attack by U.S.-NATO against Russia, or else by Russia against U.S.-NATO. The closer we get to the end of this matter, the more difficult the former option becomes, and the more inevitable the latter option — a blitz attack (by either side) — becomes. That’s the reality.

Obama’s ‘mono-polar world’ is a fiction, and the sooner that he and his Big Lie can be exposed (by the Western press, to the Western publics), the safer everyone will be. Discomforts on the parts of those who have promulgated and propagandized that lie will be vastly less than the disastrous alternative, which would destroy the world for everyone.

when did he say this? he is on record, numerous times, as saying “should Russia attack a NATO ally, he
would first assess whether those nations “have fulfilled their obligations to us.””

that is not at all the same thing as ‘end it’. please leave aside your wild conjectures and just provide a direct quote. or, remove your inaccurate claim.

Eric Zuesse

He uses different words — same meaning.

kimyo

have some decency. have some respect for this site and provide the link and the quote you refer to.

Eric Zuesse

It’s too much, but here’s just a bit of it:

Trump said that U.S. involvement in NATO may need to be significantly diminished in the coming years, breaking with nearly seven decades of consensus in Washington. “We certainly can’t afford to do this anymore,” Trump said, adding later, “NATO is costing us a fortune, and yes, we’re protecting Europe with NATO, but we’re spending a lot of money.”

on the subject of Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, said America’s allies are “not doing anything.”
“Ukraine is a country that affects us far less than it affects other countries in NATO, and yet we’re doing all of the lifting,” Trump said. “They’re not doing anything. And I say: ‘Why is it that Germany’s not dealing with NATO on Ukraine? Why is it that other countries that are in the vicinity of Ukraine, why aren’t they dealing? Why are we always the one that’s leading, potentially the third world war with Russia.’ ”

Trump said that U.S. involvement in NATO may need to be significantly diminished in the coming years, breaking with nearly seven decades of consensus in Washington. “We certainly can’t afford to do this anymore,” Trump said, adding later, “NATO is costing us a fortune, and yes, we’re protecting Europe with NATO, but we’re spending a lot of money.”

Trump said of the alliance, “We certainly can’t afford to do this anymore,” adding, “NATO is costing us a fortune and yes, we’re protecting Europe with NATO, but we’re spending a lot of money.”
U.S. officials, including former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, have said that European allies have to shoulder a bigger burden of NATO’s cost. But calling for the possible U.S. withdrawal from the treaty is a radical departure for a presidential candidate—even a candidate who has been endorsed by Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Withdrawing from NATO would leave European allies without a forceful deterrent to the Russian military, which invaded and annexed portions of Ukraine in 2014. That would arguably be a win for Putin but leave U.S. allies vulnerable.

He thinks maybe NATO has outlived its usefulness. He asks why Americans are still paying for South Korea’s national defense. Or Germany’s or Saudi Arabia’s.

I have two problems with NATO. No. 1, it’s obsolete. When NATO was formed many decades ago we were a different country. There was a different threat. Soviet Union was, the Soviet Union, not Russia, which was much bigger than Russia, as you know. And, it was certainly much more powerful than even today’s Russia, although again you go back into the weaponry. But, but – I said, I think NATO is obsolete, and I think that – because I don’t think – right now we don’t have somebody looking at terror, and we should be looking at terror. And you may want to add and subtract from NATO in terms of countries. But we have to be looking at terror, because terror today is the big threat.

SANGER: What they’ll say to you is that Russia is resurgent right now. They are rebuilding their nuclear arsenal. They’re [unintelligible] Baltics. We’ve got submarine runs, air runs. Things that have at least echoes of the old Cold War. The view is that their mission is coming back. Do you agree with that?
TRUMP: I’ll tell you the problems I have with NATO. No. 1, we pay far too much. We are spending — you know, in fact, they’re even making it so the percentages are greater. NATO is unfair, economically, to us, to the United States. Because it really helps them more so than the United States, and we pay a disproportionate share. Now, I’m a person that — you notice I talk about economics quite a bit, in these military situations, because it is about economics, because we don’t have money anymore because we’ve been taking care of so many people in so many different forms that we don’t have money — and countries, and countries. So NATO is something that at the time was excellent. Today, it has to be changed. It has to be changed to include terror. It has to be changed from the standpoint of cost because the United States bears far too much of the cost of NATO. And one of the things that I hated seeing is Ukraine. Now I’m all for Ukraine, I have friends that live in Ukraine, but it didn’t seem to me, when the Ukrainian problem arose, you know, not so long ago, and we were, and Russia was getting very confrontational, it didn’t seem to me like anyone else cared other than us. And we are the least affected by what happens with Ukraine because we’re the farthest away. But even their neighbors didn’t seem to be talking about it. And, you know, you look at Germany, you look at other countries, and they didn’t seem to be very much involved. It was all about us and Russia. And I wondered, why is it that countries that are bordering the Ukraine and near the Ukraine – why is it that they’re not more involved? Why is it that they are not more involved? Why is it always the United States that gets right in the middle of things, with something that – you know, it affects us, but not nearly as much as it affects other countries. And then I say, and on top of everything else – and I think you understand that, David – because, if you look back, and if you study your reports and everybody else’s reports, how often do you see other countries saying ‘We must stop, we must stop.” They don’t do it! And, in fact, with the gas, you know, they wanted the oil, they wanted other things from Russia, and they were just keeping their mouths shut. And here the United States was going out and, you know, being fairly tough on the Ukraine. And I said to myself, isn’t that interesting? We’re fighting for the Ukraine, but nobody else is fighting for the Ukraine other than the Ukraine itself, of course, and I said, it doesn’t seem fair and it doesn’t seem logical.

I will tell you my whole stance on NATO, David, has been — I just got back and I’m watching television and that’s all they’re talking about. And you know when I first said it, they sort of were scoffing. And now they’re really saying, well wait, do you know it’s really right? And maybe NATO — you know, it doesn’t talk about terror. Terror is a big thing right now. That wasn’t the big thing when it originated and people are starting to talk about the cost.
SANGER: Well it’s geared toward state actors and you’re discussing gearing something toward nonstate actors. Is it possible that we need a new institution that is not burdened by the military structure of NATO in order to deal with nonstate actors and terrorists?
TRUMP: I actually think in terms of terror you may be better off with a new institution, an institution that would be more fairly based, an institution that would be more fairly taken care of from an economic standpoint. You have many wealthy states over there that are not going to be there if it’s not for us, and they’re not going to be there if it is for terror. Whether it’s Saudi Arabia or others. I actually do think, while I’d like to adapt it, I think you have a different set of players, frankly. You have more of a Middle Eastern player and others but you would have in addition, Middle Eastern players.
SANGER: Who are not currently members of NATO. You think the membership of NATO is not set up right for combating terror.
TRUMP: No, it was set up to talk about the Soviet Union. Now of course the Soviet Union doesn’t exist now it’s Russia, which is not the same size, in theory not the same power, but who knows about that because of weaponry, but it’s not the same size and this was set up for numerous things but for the Soviet Union. The point is the world is a much different place right now. And today all you have to do is read and see the world is, the big threat would seem to be based on terror and based on what’s going on in 90 percent, 95 percent of the horror stories. I think, probably a new institution maybe would be better for that than using NATO which was not meant for that. And it’s become very bureaucratic, extremely expensive and maybe is not flexible enough to go after terror. Terror is very much different than what NATO was set up for.
SANGER: And requires a different kind of force.
TRUMP: I think it requires a different flexibility, it requires a different speed maybe, watching nations or a nation or nations. I think it requires flexibility and speed.

kimyo

Trump said that U.S. involvement in NATO may need to be significantly
diminished in the coming years….

in the text you quote, trump never said this. you didn’t provide a link, so i was not able to look further.

nothing above says ‘end nato’. paraphrasing, he says 1) u.s. funding of nato must be reduced and 2) an organization other than nato must take up the ‘fight against terrorism’. he seems perfectly happy to have nato’s funding increase, as long as someone else pays for it.

Brockland A.T.

I’m not convinced Zuesse is the one lacking decency…

kimyo

then you must not spend a lot of time reading his posts.

example headline: Why Sanders Continues Campaigning
(article contains not a single quote attributed to sanders. how is this not divination? whatever it is, it’s certainly not reporting.)

this is why i suggest he show some honor and decency when posting here. he could choose to elevate this site rather than diminish it. false/inaccurate tabloid style headlines do not belong here.

Brockland A.T.

Uh huh, and Herman’s calls for arrests aren’t as alarming as they are attention grabbing?

Zuesse has his good and bad days and I’ve called some of the bad ones. Nonetheless, anyone reading Trump in his own words would realize, he’s no fan of NATO and its not out of line to assume he would end it based upon his anti-NATO and military cost cutting rhetoric.

Just because Trump would use NATO doesn’t mean he’d keep it around if he could find a better alternative. When a reporter asks Trump how he would respond to an attack on a NATO ally, that’s a leading question, because it assumes the alliance is still valid and denies that Trump thinks its too costly.

If the U.S. is funding 70% of NATO, and its most powerful other members, with far smaller defense expenditures, haven’t been able to maintain consistently robust economies anyway, they can’t meet his demands to pay their way. Dissolution is very much a possibility and NATO dissolution is no big problem for Trump.

Herman’s calls for arrests aren’t as alarming as they are attention grabbing?

i fully support herman’s calls for the arrest of the people who are destroying our country. cheney, in particular, should be arrested and put to trial. herman’s calls for arrests are the only sensible response. we’re not talking about some minor irregularities here. we are talking about the most serious sort of war crimes, millions dead, mostly civilians.

and its not out of line to assume he would end it

in deference to you, i just spent a half an hour reading every word in the ibtimes/nytimes/business insider links you posted.

my 3 observations:
1) there is simply no support for the conclusion that trump intends to ‘end it’. that’s one of many possible outcomes, sure, but at no time did trump ever say ‘end nato’ with any sort of clarity or conviction.
2) at times, trump sounds just like dubya. ex:

Very early on. I think it’s a natural. I think it’s a natural. I mean, we have two groups that are friendly and they are fighting each other. So if we could put them together, that would be something that would be possible to do, in my opinion.

Cyber is absolutely a thing of the future and the present. Look, we’re under cyberattack, forget about them. And we don’t even know where it’s coming from.

coherence-wise, that’s just down the street from

“There’s an old saying in Tennessee — I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can’t get fooled again.”

3) trump is clueless on the situation in ukraine/iran.

Brockland A.T.

Then you are going to get a Hilary regime and whatever she and her neocon friends deem as the correct pretexts for arrests.

Never Trump = Only Hilary

You and Herman will also have laid ample kindling towards a populist righteous witchburning anyone can tap into, because its frustration separated from civil sense.

The yahoo mentality you embrace turns the good timber of more sincerely intelligent activists into so much kindling for the bonfire, not material to build a just society with.

You read, but do you understand anything. I’m sure you’d probably disagree with this:

“A famous quote from the Vietnam War was a statement attributed to an unnamed U.S. officer by AP correspondent Peter Arnett in his writing about Bến Tre city on 7 February 1968:

‘It became necessary to destroy the town to save it’, a United States major said today. He was talking about the decision by allied commanders to bomb and shell the town regardless of civilian casualties, to rout the Vietcong.”

However, you have no sense of how to prevent that from happening. We all know Hilary intends to break the law and call it righteous. You don’t know what Trump will do, and he doesn’t have blood on his hands.

Yet, you will take action to allow a Hilary regime, perhaps under the pretext that the United States and its victims haven’t suffered enough to see things your way.

kimyo

i believe your answer to this one simple question will allow us to go our separate ways: should cheney be put on trial for crimes against humanity?

Brockland A.T.

The principle at stake is, a suspect is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Presumption of innocence is a fundamental human right. There is no reason to make Cheney any more of a vandal to the system than he already has been and is.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney needs to be duly formally investigated for a host of crimes, from leaking state secrets in outing Valerie Plame to war crimes over his role in Iraq War II and probably a whole lot more not as popularly documented

Very likely the outcome of fair investigations would net Dick Cheney several well-deserved indictments leading to several preferably fair trials to account for his rather popularly obvious multitude of crimes against his country, fellow citizens, and humanity in general.

Hopefully commensurate sentencing would result should he be found guilty, and the domestic and international system of human rights he has dedicated a career to undermining is restored.

twinfishfour .

Dressing up crazy Trump in your hopes……. look, the guy could promise anything he heard was good to promise that day. There is no sign that Trump goes deeper than tv spectacle. There is no sign he is even sane. Have you seen the reddit AMA? Are you kidding me?

Yes, there is a serious problem, and serious denial, but Trump is not a serious answer. There really is no good answer unless the American people have had enough of the two corrupt parties. Jill Stein would not lead America to ruin. Either Hillary or Trump is guaranteed disaster. But the people have not had enough pain yet. They are still willing to watch the dance of the two turds. Sad.

Brockland A.T.

Hilary guarantees disaster; people only fear that Trump will deliver by accident what Hilary is guaranteed to deliver by both deliberation and incompetence.

Never Hilary = Only Trump

At the very least the very chance of seeing the look on Hilary’s face, losing to Trump, would be worth a Trump vote.

“There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil.” – John Adams

Discussion of foreign policy was distinctly absent from the Dem Con. Trump has been vocal on the issue. He blames US/NATO policy for creating the mess in the ME. He criticized the elimination of Saddam and Gaddafi as the main cause of the rise of ISIS. He’s right. The media is engaged in a full court press against Trump for this reason. The MSM is a CIA tool. I’m voting Green because my champion turned out to be a tired old man, but if my vote and millions of others turns out to be the spoiler that puts Trump in the WH, I will have more confidence that we won’t have a nuclear confrontation than if Hillary has her finger on the trigger.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political, economic, scientific, and educational issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: